06 0287 Douglasmine Dgasstreport

MAJOR PROJECT ASSESSMENT Douglas North 66/11kV Substation – Appin Coal Mine

Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report Section 75I of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

June 2007

Douglas North 66/11kV Substation – Appin Coal Mine Director-General’s Environmental Assessment Report

NSW Government 2 Department of Planning

Cover: 3D computer projection of the proposed Douglas North Substation. © Crown copyright 2007 Published June 2007 NSW Department of Planning www.planning.nsw.gov.au Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of publication, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BHP Billiton Illawarra Coal Holdings Pty Limited (BHP Billiton) proposes to construct and operate an electricity supply substation at Douglas Park within the Wollondilly local government area (Figure 1). The substation would enable the supply of increased power to the Appin Coal Mine.

Figure 1: Maps showing the location of the proposed substation. The proposal is classified as a major project under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), and consequently the Minister for Planning is the approval authority for the project. The Department exhibited the environmental assessment for the project between 13 March 2007 and 13 April 2007. The main issue raised during the public exhibition period was flora and fauna. The project requires the removal of a small amount (about 0.2 hectare) of good quality vegetation generally comprising Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest endangered ecological community (EEC). Following its assessment, the Department is satisfied that the project would not have a significant impact on this EEC, or on any threatened species. The Department has recommended conditions of approval requiring BHP Billiton to provide a biodiversity offset by excluding grazing from the site to compensate for clearing 0.2



hectares of vegetation and also to prepare a Vegetation Clearing Protocol prior to undertaking any works on the site. The Department is satisfied that other environmental impacts of the proposal are minor, and can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance. The Department believes the project would generate socio-economic benefits by attracting capital investment of $3.6 million to the region, and employing 20 people during its construction. More importantly, it would facilitate ongoing mining operations at the Appin Coal Mine, which is a major employer in the Appin region. On balance, the Department believes the benefits of the proposal outweigh its potential costs, and subsequently believes it is in the public interest and should be approved.



1. PROPOSED PROJECT

BHP Billiton proposes to construct and operate an electricity supply substation at Douglas Park (MP 06_0287). This substation will transform power from 66 kV to 11 kV before delivering it underground to Appin coal mine via specially constructed boreholes. The major components of the project are (see Figure 2): • two 66/11 kV transformers and electricity supply distribution switching station components; • two demountable single level control buildings; and • an access road, security fencing, switchyard lighting and three boreholes.

Figure 2: Project Layout

An upgrade of the mine’s 11kV capacity and 11kV distribution network is required to support current operations, and allow continued extraction of coal reserves. The objective of the project is to increase the existing underground supply at the mine to 25 megavolt amperes (MVA) capacity. The location of the proposed switching station is approximately 200 metres northwest of the Nepean River, and 170 metres from the nearest residence. Alternate project locations were considered; however, BHP Billiton considers this location to be the preferred option as it provides energy efficiencies, being located closer to the point of consumption than other potential project locations. The project is estimated to cost $3.6 million, and would generate 20 construction jobs. BHP Billiton lodged an environmental assessment for the project with the Department on 14 February 2007.



2. STATUTORY CONTEXT

2.1 Major Project Under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Projects) 2005, the proposal is classified as a major project as it involves development for the purposes of coal mining. As such, the project is to be assessed under Part 3A of the EP&A Act, and the Minister for Planning is the approval authority for the project. 2.2 Permissibility The project is located on land zoned Rural A1 under the Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 1991, and is permissible with consent in this zone. 2.3 Exhibition The Department exhibited the environmental assessment of the project from 13 March 2007 until 13 April 2007 in accordance with the requirements in section 75H of the EP&A Act. 2.4 Objects of the EP&A Act All decisions made under the EP&A Act must have regard to the Act’s objects, as set out in Section 5 of the Act. The Minister’s consideration and determination of the project application must therefore be consistent with the objects of the Act. Most relevantly, these are.

“(a) to encourage: (i) the proper management, development and conservation of natural and artificial

resources, including agricultural land, natural areas, forests, minerals, water, cities, towns and villages for the purpose of promoting the social and economic welfare of the community and a better environment,

(ii) the promotion and co-ordination of the orderly and economic use and development of land,

(vi) the protection of the environment, including the protection and conservation of native animals and plants, including threatened species, populations and ecological communities, and their habitats, and

(vii) ecologically sustainable development” The Department has taken into account all objects of the Act, including the encouragement of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD), in its assessment of the project application. The Department is satisfied that its assessment complies with the objects of the EP&A Act and that the Minister may determine the project accordingly. 2.5 Environmental Planning Instruments Under section 75I(2) of the EP&A Act, the Director-General’s report is required to include a copy of, or reference to, the provisions of any State Environmental Planning Policies (SEPPs) that substantially govern the carrying out of the project. The Department is generally satisfied that there are no SEPPs that substantially govern the carrying out of the project, but has assessed the proposal against the relevant provisions of the following environmental planning instruments (see Appendix D): • SEPP No.11 – Traffic Generating Developments; • Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No 20 – Hawkesbury-Nepean River; and • Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 1991. This assessment concludes that the project can be conducted in a manner that is consistent with the relevant requirements of these planning instruments.



2.6 Statement of Compliance Under Section 75I of the EP&A Act, the Director-General’s report is required to include a statement relating to compliance with the environmental assessment requirements with respect to the Project. The Department is satisfied that the Director-General’s environmental assessment requirements have been complied with. 3. ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS

The Department received 7 submissions on the project; one from the Northern Illawarra Aboriginal Collective Inc (NIAC), and 6 from public authorities (the former Department of Environment and Conservation, now the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), Wollondilly Shire Council (WSC), Department of Primary Industries (DPI), Integral Energy, the former Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB) – see Appendix C). Only the NIAC submission objected to the project, on the basis that consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders was inadequate. Integral Energy and DNR did not offer any specific comment on the project. Both the DECC and WSC were primarily concerned with issues relating to flora and fauna. These concerns included ensuring that an adequate biodiversity offset would be provided to compensate for proposed vegetation clearing, weed control measures, and minimising the impact to the Shale Sandstone Transition Forest EEC. The DEC also recommended that BHP Billiton’s Cultural Heritage Management Plan be extended in scope to include archaeological testing in all areas that would be impacted by the project. The WSC also provided specific recommendations for erosion and sediment control, vegetation clearing, management of the on-site sewage system, waste management and Aboriginal cultural heritage management. The MSB recommended that the Department require BHP Billiton to certify that structures have been designed to accommodate potential subsidence, as the site is within a mine subsidence district. BHP Billiton provided a response to all of these issues (see Appendix B), and the Department has considered the issues and BHP Billiton’s response to these issues in more detail in Section 4 below. 4. ASSESSMENT

4.1 Flora and Fauna The site contains some areas of good quality native vegetation (see Figure 2), particularly in the riparian zone of the Nepean River. Most of this vegetation consists of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest, which is listed as an EEC under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This vegetation is potential habitat for a number of threatened fauna species listed under both the TSC and EPBC Acts. However, no threatened flora species were located during the assessment of the site’s vegetation. The vegetation along the margin of the Nepean River also forms an important habitat corridor for the region. BHP Billiton proposes to locate most of the planned infrastructure within areas that have been previously cleared; that is, open grassland areas or existing tracks or easements. However, the proposed works would involve the removal of up to 0.2 hectares of EEC, which represents 0.0036% of the 5,381 hectares of this EEC that occurs within a 10 kilometre radius of this site. Although this amount of clearing is very small on a regional scale, there will be localised impacts on the site which both the DEC and the Department believe should be offset by a conservation measure to ensure there is a long-term net improvement in biodiversity values on the site.



BHP Billiton responded to this concern by committing to the exclusion of exotic grazing animals from the 5.7 hectare site (see Appendix B) and revegetation plantings on 0.6 hectares of the site. This offset would allow the Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest to regenerate on the site, and ensure the ongoing vigour of the riparian vegetation along the Nepean River. The DECC and the Department support this proposal, and the Department has recommended an additional condition requiring BHP Billiton to manage the site to ensure the regeneration and protection of native vegetation on the site by measures including controlling weeds and preventing rubbish dumping. BHP Billiton’s assessment concluded that while the proposed works will modify 0.8 hectares of potential habitat (including edge effects to the area of clearing) for 22 threatened or migratory fauna species, given the mobility of these species and the extent of similar habitat in the immediate vicinity of the site, it is unlikely that the project would have a significant impact on them. The Department is satisfied with BHP Billiton’s assessment of flora and fauna and, with the mitigating strategies outlined above, is satisfied that the project would not result in any significant impact on flora and fauna. 4.2 Cultural Heritage There is one known Aboriginal heritage item and no European heritage items within the project area. However, the Aboriginal site would not be disturbed by construction activities and would be protected by a fenced buffer zone. BHP Billiton also proposes to implement a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) involving test excavations in areas that would be disturbed by the footprint of proposed buildings. The DECC recommended that these excavations be expanded to also include broader areas impacted by vehicles and construction activities. BHP Billiton has agreed to implement this recommendation, and other DECC recommendations to improve the robustness of the CHMP, including consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders if the on-site investigations identify any Aboriginal objects. The Northern Illawarra Aboriginal Collective Inc (NIAC) objected strongly to the project on the basis that BHP Billiton did not adequately consult with all appropriate Aboriginal groups and NIAC had been excluded from participating in cultural heritage field work for the project. However, DECC indicated in its submission that “the Aboriginal Heritage Assessment was conducted generally in accordance with DECC guidance”. The Department therefore raised NIAC’s concerns with DECC which confirmed that its guidelines for consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders had been followed. The Department accepts that BHP Billiton has undertaken its assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage on the site in accordance with the guidelines and that NIAC was provided with an appropriate opportunity to participate. Additionally, if the test excavations required by the CHMP were to locate previously unknown Aboriginal artefacts, BHP Billiton has given an undertaking (in its response to submissions) to consult with relevant Aboriginal groups (which would include NIAC) about all management actions for these artefacts. The Department is satisfied with the content of the CHMP, BHP Billiton’s proposed investigation of the potential for additional archaeological artefacts, and its proposed management of known artefacts. BHP Billiton’s commitments in this regard are such that the Department believes that no additional conditions are required. 4.3 Other Issues Other environmental aspects associated with the project have been considered and are summarised in Table 1 below.



Issue Department’s Consideration Impact

Construction Noise The project would take about 7 months to construct and commission. BHP Billiton undertook a construction noise assessment which found that construction noise levels would comply with relevant construction noise criteria. The nearest sensitive residential receiver is about 170 metres from the site.

Low

Operational Noise The noise environment of the site is strongly influenced by its location within 200 metres of the Hume Highway. Given the low noise emissions associated with the substation, the distance to receivers, and the noise impact assessment provided by BHP Billiton, the Department is satisfied that the project would not result in any significant operational noise impacts.

Very Low

Soil and Water The main potential impacts to soil and water are associated with general disturbance during construction works. These impacts would be minimised through standard construction erosion and sediment control measures. The Department is satisfied that the project can be managed such that it would not result in any significant soil or water impacts.

Low

Transport and Access

Access to the site would be via a two-lane earthen track from Moreton Park Road. Due to low predicted traffic numbers during construction and operation (12 vehicles per day during construction, 1 vehicle per week during operations), impact is expected to be low. Provision of car parking consistent with operational access (approximately 1 vehicle per week) is proposed.

Very Low

Visual Impact An assessment commissioned by BHP Billiton concluded that it is not likely that the proposed substation would be noticeable or offensive to the public, when viewed from surrounding public areas. The assessment recommends that the perimeter fence and buildings be constructed in colours that minimise visual impacts. The Department is satisfied that, with the implementation of these measures, the visual impact of the proposed substation would be very low.

Very Low

Air Quality The main potential air quality impact is dust emission during construction. Given the dust mitigation measures proposed by BHP Billiton (including the use of a water cart), the Department is satisfied that impact to air quality would be very low.

Very Low

Electromagnetic Field Effects

Emissions from the switching station would be within the guidelines for the exposure of humans to Electric and Magnetic Fields set by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Department is satisfied the impact of electromagnetic fields would be minimal.

Minimal

Bushfire protection The project would be constructed in accordance with Integral Energy’s requirements that include bushfire protection and management.

Minimal

Table 1: Other environmental impacts of the project. Following its assessment, the Department is satisfied that the impacts associated with these aspects are relatively minor, and can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance, subject to conditions. 5. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The Department has prepared recommended conditions of approval for the project (see Appendix A). These conditions are required to: • prevent, minimise, and/or offset adverse environmental impacts; • set standards and performance measures for acceptable environmental performance; and • provide for the ongoing environmental management of the project. BHP Billiton does not object to the recommended conditions of approval. 6. CONCLUSION

The Department has assessed the project in accordance with the requirements in clause 8B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, and is satisfied that the impacts of the



project can be mitigated and/or managed to ensure an acceptable level of environmental performance, subject to conditions. The project requires the removal of a small amount (about 0.2 hectares) of good quality vegetation which contains Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest EEC. The Department is satisfied that the project would not have a significant impact on this EEC or on other threatened species, but believes BHP Billiton should be required to provide a biodiversity offset by the exclusion of exotic grazing animals from 5.7 hectares of its land adjacent to the Nepean River. Additionally, BHP Billiton would be required to prepare a Vegetation Clearing Protocol for the works, which includes provisions to protect Shale Sandstone Transitional Forest from inadvertent damage. The Department is satisfied that the site is suitable for the project given its distance from residential receivers (170 metres), the minimal and/or manageable environmental impacts associated with the project, and the need to locate the facility close to the point of consumption (to maximise energy efficiency). The Department is also satisfied that the project is in the public interest, given that it: • provides important infrastructure support to the Appin Coal Mine, which generates significant

regional socio-economic benefits; • would generate local socio-economic benefits, including a capital investment of about $3.6

million, and 20 construction jobs; and • can be conducted with minimal environmental impact. On balance, the Department believes the benefits of the project outweigh its potential costs, and consequently believes it is in the public interest and should be approved. 7. RECOMMENDATION

It is RECOMMENDED that the Minister: • consider the findings and recommendations of this report; • approve the project application, subject to conditions; and • sign the attached instrument of approval (Appendix A). David Kitto Director Major Development Assessment Chris Wilson Executive Director Major Project Assessment Sam Haddad Director-General



APPENDIX A – CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL



APPENDIX B – RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS



APPENDIX C – SUBMISSIONS


14

APPENDIX D - ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.11 – Traffic Generating Development The proposal is affected by the provisions of SEPP 11, as an “extractive industry or mining” (Schedule 1(m)) and the application is required to be referred to the RTA. The RTA did not provide a submission on the proposal.

The Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2, George’s River Catchment

Part of the project extends onto land that is classed as regional open space under the Greater Metropolitan Regional Environmental Plan No 2, Georges River Catchment. This REP aims to:

• Maintain and improve the water quality and river flows of the Georges River and its tributaries.

• Protect and enhance the environmental quality of the Catchment for the benefit of all users.

• Ensure consistency in the delivery of the principles of ecologically sustainable development within the Catchment and promote integrated catchment policies.

The REP has a number of general and specific planning principles that guide development assessment in the Catchment. The Department is satisfied that the project is consistent with the aims and planning principles of the REP.

Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 1991

The project is located on land zoned Rural A1 under the Wollondilly Local Environment Plan 1991. The project is characterised as development for the purposes of mining and is therefore permissible in the Rural A1 zone.

The objectives of the Rural A1 zone are:

(a) to protect the agricultural potential of rural land and to prevent fragmentation of viable rural holdings,

(b) to prevent inappropriate, premature and sporadic subdivisions and to ensure consolidation of urban areas so as to enhance the prospect of economic provision of services,

(c) to prevent, on the fringe of urban areas, subdivision of land into small lots which would prejudice the proper layout of additional urban areas as a result of natural growth,

(d) to retain the scenic quality and overall character of the land, and

(e) to encourage agricultural activities that are within the rural capability of the land.

The Department is satisfied that the Project is consistent with these objectives, and the relevant provisions of the LEP.


15

APPENDIX E – ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

06 0287 Douglasmine Dgasstreport

Documents

Transcript of 06 0287 Douglasmine Dgasstreport